Obama WILL be the next president

Truant · Post by **Truant** » March 6, 2008, 2:56 am

Texas has what's called an open primary. As long as you are registered, you can vote in the primary of either party. Polling places are seperate though, and you can't vote for both.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 6, 2008, 6:35 pm

http://thepage.time.com/obama-memo-on-c ... x-returns/

TO: Interested Parties
FR: The Obama Campaign
RE: TAX RETURNS: What does Clinton have to hide?

DA: March 5, 2008

The Clinton campaign today maintained that “the vetting of Barack Obama has just begun.” The truth is, more than a year into this campaign, some very simple vetting of Hillary Clinton has yet to start.

In the face of her unwillingness to release her tax returns, Hillary Clinton has made the false case in this campaign that she is more electable because she has been fully vetted. When it comes to her personal finances, Senator Clinton’s refusal to release her taxes returns denies the media and the American people the opportunity to even begin that process. Though her campaign has tried to kick the issue down the road, Democratic voters deserve to know, right now, why it is she is hiding the information in her tax returns from last year.

The Clinton campaign has said that they have released copious amounts of financial information but there are many questions about their private dealings that could be answered in their tax returns but not in the information that is currently available. For example, here are eight pieces of information that could be learned from her tax returns, the accompanying schedules, and attachments:

Effective tax rate – including whether or not any tax shelters were used to reduce it
Amount of income for spouses by source
Amount of stock gains and losses
Gross income for the couple
Amount earned from stock dividends
Amount of household employment taxes paid
Personal exemptions taken
Charitable contributions made

Senator Clinton has also claimed that she is too “busy” to release her tax returns. Given the fact she is able to loan her campaign $5 million, you would think the Clintons would be able to hire an accountant. The reality is that she wants to keep this information hidden from voters. The people of Wyoming, Mississippi, Pennsylvania and the rest of the country should wonder why.

The Clintons’ record on releasing tax returns:

FEBRUARY 2008: Clinton Reiterated That She Would Not Release Her Tax Records Until She Is The Nominee And Not Before Mid-April. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she won’t release her tax returns until she has the Democratic presidential nomination in hand, and not before tax filing time comes in mid-April. “I will release my tax returns,” Clinton said during the debate. “I have consistently said I will do that once I become the nominee, or even earlier.” Pressed about the timing of releasing her tax returns, campaign aides were more reticent Wednesday, indicating that Clinton would not release the sensitive financial data during a hotly contested primary, but only at tax filing time.

JUNE 2007: Clinton Does Not Plan to Release Her Tax Returns Until Next Year. According to the Washington Post, Clinton said through a spokesman that, “like past presidential candidates,” she will “release tax information in the election year.”
APRIL 12, 1996: Clinton Released His Tax Returns. President Clinton and his wife earned $316,074 in 1995, including the president’s $200,000 salary, according to tax returns released Friday by the White House. The public release of the tax returns, three days before the April 15 filing deadline, shows that Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton are owed a refund of $5,656 on the $81,093 they paid in taxes, and will apply that refund to their 1996 income taxes.

April 15, 1992: Bill Clinton Made His Tax Returns Public. APRIL 15, 1992: Bill Clinton made his tax returns made public.

Bill Clinton Released His Tax Returns In 1992 But Refused To Release Their Tax Returns From Before 1980. During the 1992 campaign, the Clintons claimed to be coming clean by releasing their tax returns from 1980 forward. But they steadfastly refused to release their returns for prior years, and only later did we learn that 1978 and 1979 were the tax years when Mrs. Clinton reported her 10,000% cattle-futures trading profit.

If the media were worth a shit, they'd hammer away at this and make her life miserable until she released them. She's hiding something and knows she can't take the spotlight if it's shined on their personal lives.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 7, 2008, 12:20 am

A rather long article from Newsweek on why Hillary can't win:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010/output/print

Hillary’s New Math Problem

Tuesday's big wins? The delegate calculus just got worse.
Jonathan Alter
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 6:48 PM ET Mar 5, 2008

Hillary Clinton won big victories Tuesday night in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. But she's now even further behind in the race for the Democratic nomination. How could that be? Math. It's relentless.

To beat Barack Obama among pledged delegates, Clinton now needs even bigger margins in the 12 remaining primaries than she needed when I ran the numbers on Monday--an average of 23 points, which is more than double what she received in Ohio.

Superdelegates won't help Clinton if she cannot erase Obama's lead among pledged delegates, which now stands at roughly 134. Caucus results from Texas aren't complete, but Clinton will probably net about 10 delegates out of March 4. That's 10 down, 134 to go. Good luck.

I've asked several prominent uncommitted superdelegates if there's any chance they would reverse the will of Democratic voters. They all say no. It would shatter young people and destroy the party.

Hillary's only hope lies in the popular vote-a yardstick on which she now trails Obama by about 600,000 votes. Should she end the primary season in June with a lead in popular votes, she could get a hearing from uncommitted superdelegates for all the other arguments that she would make a stronger nominee. (Wins the big states, etc.). If she loses both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, no argument will cause the superdelegates to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters. It will be over.

Projecting popular votes precisely is impossible because there's no way to calculate turnout. But Clinton would likely need do-overs in Michigan and Florida (whose January primaries didn't count because they broke Democratic Party rules). But even this probably wouldn't give her the necessary popular vote margins.

Remember, Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot when voters there went to the polls. Even if he's trounced there (and Michigan, won by Jesse Jackson in 1988, has a large African-American vote in its primary), Obama would still win hundreds of thousands of popular votes. This is also an argument for why Obama may end up preferring a primary to a caucus in Michigan. (Obama has done better in caucuses).

Florida, with its heavy population of elderly and Jewish voters, might be a better place for Hillary to close the popular vote gap. But even if you assume she does five points better than her double-digit win there in the meaningless February primary (where no one campaigned), she would still fall short.

I'm no good at math, but with the help of "Slate’s Delegate Calculator" I've once again scoped out the rest of the primaries. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week. That's 12 victories in a row, bigger in total than Obama's run of 11 straight. And this time I've assigned her even larger margins than I did before in Wyoming, North Carolina, Indiana and Kentucky.

So here we go again:

Let's assume that on Saturday in Wyoming, Hillary's March 4 momentum gives her an Ohio-style 10-point win, confounding every expectation. Next Tuesday in Mississippi, where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary, she shocks the political world by again winning 55-45.

Then on April 22, the big one-Pennsylvania-and it's a Hillary blow-out: 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 3 and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6. The Hoosiers go for Hillary 55-45 and the same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state. Enough blacks desert Obama to give North Carolina to Hillary in another big win, 55-45, netting her seven more delegates.

May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. Another 60-40 landslide on May 20 in Kentucky nets her 11 more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Ooops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3 and the scheduled primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates.

Given that I've put not a thumb but my whole fist on the scale, this fanciful calculation gives Hillary the lead, right? Actually, it makes the score 1,625 to 1,584 for Obama. A margin of 39 pledged delegates may not seem like much, but remember, the chances of Obama losing state after state by 20-point margins are slim to none.

So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. What happens then? Will Democrats come together before the Denver Convention opens in late August?

We know that Hillary is unlikely to quit. This will leave it up to the superdelegates to figure out how to settle on a nominee. With 205 already committed to Obama, he would need another 200 uncommitted superdelegates to get to the magic number of 2025 delegates needed to nominate. But that's only under my crazy pro-Hillary projections. More likely, Obama would need about 50-100 of the approximately 500 uncommitted superdelegates, which shouldn't be too difficult.

But let's say all the weeks of negative feeling have taken a toll. Let's say that Clinton supporters are feeling embittered and inclined to sit on their hands. It's not too hard to imagine prominent superdelegates asking Obama to consider putting Hillary on the ticket.

This might be the wrong move for him. A national security choice like Sen. Jim Webb, former Sen. Sam Nunn or retired Gen. Anthony Zinni could make more sense. But if Obama did ask Clinton, don't assume she would say no just because she has, well, already served as de facto vice president for eight years under her husband. (Sorry, Al).

In fact, she would probably say yes. When there's a good chance to win, almost no one has ever said no. (Colin Powell is the exception). In 1960, when the vice-presidency was worth a lot less, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson gave up his powerful position to run with John F. Kennedy.

How about Clinton-Obama? Nope. The Clintonites can spin to their heart's content about how big March 4 was for them. How close the race is. How they've got the Big Mo now.

Tell it to Slate's Delegate Calculator. Again.

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » March 7, 2008, 2:00 am

I wake up everyday wondering what entertainment this campaign will bring today. Ie: Clinton compares Obama to Kenneth Starr for demanding her to release her tax returns. Meanwhile she tries to play the victim card and gain female support by reminding everyone she was cheated on, which coincidently Kenneth Starr helped expose.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » March 8, 2008, 1:22 pm

Here's an interesting article about further Hilldog lies about foreign policy experience.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ols108.xml

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » March 9, 2008, 1:22 am

Hillary Clinton is totally gay.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 10, 2008, 2:13 pm

If the public knew then what they do now of Hillary, there would have been no investigation into Bill getting a hummer..

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 10, 2008, 2:59 pm

COLUMBUS, Miss -- Sen. Barack Obama delivered an animated rebuke today of suggestions from the Clintons in recent days that he could run as her vice president.

“Now first of all with all due respect, with all due respect," he said here during a town hall meeting. "I won twice as many states as Sen. Clinton. I won more of the popular vote than Sen. Clinton. I have more delegates than Sen. Clinton. So I don’t’ know how someone in second place can offer the vice presidency to someone in first place. If I was in second place I could understand but I am in first place right now."

He referenced comments from Bill Clinton in 1992 that his “most important criteria” for vice president was that person must be ready to be commander in chief.

“They have been spending the last two or three weeks” arguing that he is not ready to be commander in chief, Obama said.

“I don’t understand. If I am not ready, why do you think I would be such a great vice president?” Obama asked the crowd, which gave him a standing ovation during his defense. “I don’t understand.”

“You can’t say he is not ready on day one, then you want him to be your vice president,” Obama continued. “I just want everybody to absolutely clear: I am not running for vice president. I am running to be president of the United States of America.”

Nice... It's funny how some of the best arguments against Hillary and her campaign came from Bill.

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » March 10, 2008, 4:00 pm

At the moment its pretty much impossible for Clinton to win. Obama is in position to get enough delegates, and has enough of the popular vote, to pull in the supers and put him over the top. Of course, I think Hillary will try to hang on for the DNC so she can blackmail and bribe to try to get them to change their minds, but hopefully SOMEONE (Howard Dean) will intervene. If he doesn't step up before they waste too much time and she slings too much mud it could hurt the democrats chances for the election. She fucking said McCain would be a better president than Obama. How the fuck can she say that shit?

You know, maybe I am just young, but goddamn are most of our politicians sleazy fucks. I liked Bill and McCain years ago but not so much now, I like Kucinich, Paul, Al Gore (though I don't agree with global warming, I like that he is trying to help...even if it is possibly just for publicity or money), Obama, and a few of the other democrats or libertarians, but thats probably just because of the stuff I don't know about them. Hillary is such a lying, manipulative, power hungry piece of shit. God I can't wait for this nomination and election to be over. If Obama isn't our next president then I am scared about what will happen to us, though I don't know how much he can do to stop the recession.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 10, 2008, 4:07 pm

and they still aren't done counting the TX Caucus results where a third of the delegates are awarded, hehe

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 10, 2008, 4:09 pm

Boogahz wrote:and they still aren't done counting the TX Caucus results where a third of the delegates are awarded, hehe

Why aren't they?... This is a problem in my opinion. There's no reason I could see that this couldn't be completed within a day.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 10, 2008, 4:11 pm

Fash wrote:
Boogahz wrote:and they still aren't done counting the TX Caucus results where a third of the delegates are awarded, hehe
Why aren't they?... This is a problem in my opinion. There's no reason I could see that this couldn't be completed within a day.

I have heard reports locally that they had to stop counting for a day or two due to some procedural issue. I am not too sure on the specifics. Also, the turnout was FAR greater than they expected, so I am sure that the manpower was a tad low.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 10, 2008, 4:14 pm

Heh... the only procedure that matters is counting the fucking votes before someone fucks with them.

It's not like increased turnout everywhere else gave them time to prepare or anything.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 10, 2008, 4:29 pm

well, I use my precinct as an example. Where 10 used to show up, there were about 10 times that number present this time.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » March 10, 2008, 5:11 pm

Boogahz wrote:well, I use my precinct as an example. Where 10 used to show up, there were about 10 times that number present this time.

Also, and quite oddly. My entire town was consolidated to three polling places for democrats (and no notice was given). Which means there were 4-6 precincts at each polling place. Which means that there were a rediculous amount of people showing up for caucuses for all these precincts at the same time and place. I was in a gymnasium at a church, and there were at least 400 people in there. (serious fire code violation!)

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 10, 2008, 6:32 pm

Fash wrote:
COLUMBUS, Miss -- Sen. Barack Obama delivered an animated rebuke today of suggestions from the Clintons in recent days that he could run as her vice president.

“Now first of all with all due respect, with all due respect," he said here during a town hall meeting. "I won twice as many states as Sen. Clinton. I won more of the popular vote than Sen. Clinton. I have more delegates than Sen. Clinton. So I don’t’ know how someone in second place can offer the vice presidency to someone in first place. If I was in second place I could understand but I am in first place right now."
Nice... It's funny how some of the best arguments against Hillary and her campaign came from Bill.

It's good to see Obama make those comments. Lets hope Hillary rejects the notion of a VP position as well.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 10, 2008, 7:21 pm

video of the obama response: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4422403

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 11, 2008, 2:25 am

A Japanese doctor says, "Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have him out looking for work in six weeks."

A German doctor says, "That is nothing. We can take a lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him out looking for work in four weeks."

A British M. D. says, "In my country, medicine is so advanced that we can take half a heart out of one person, put it in another, and have both of them out looking for work in two weeks."

A U. S. doctor, not to be outdone, interjected, "You guys are way behind. We are about to take a woman with no brain, put her in the White House, and before you know it, half the country will be out looking for work.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 11, 2008, 11:44 am

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/r ... xdems.html

Texas presidential caucus winner? Check back in 18 days
Major counties faced with deluge of results not yet counting votes.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

A week after Texas Democrats trooped to nighttime caucuses to choose between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Texans don't know which presidential candidate won the town-hallish events — and might not for about 18 days.

Democratic Party chiefs in major counties on Monday were verifying sign-in sheets from last Tuesday's caucuses and not expecting to focus on results until later this week or next. "We're not even counting (who voted for whom) at this point," Dallas County Democratic Party chairwoman Darlene Ewing said. "We're just copying" documents.

The delay in Texas contrasts with Iowa, where results typically settle out the night of its caucuses, said Peverill Squire, a University of Missouri political scientist who worked until recently at the University of Iowa. The difference "is a result of not being prepared for the tidal wave of participation," Squire said. "Given the importance attached to these numbers, I'm a little surprised that they're not going to move more quickly."

Hector Nieto, spokesman for the Texas Democratic Party, agreed the estimated turnout of 1 million voters at the caucuses was taxing.

"There was no way to estimate how many people were going to participate in the caucuses," Nieto said. "We did everything we could within our capabilities."

Clinton, the New York senator, won the popular vote in last Tuesday's primary, snagging a four-delegate edge in the state over Obama, the Illinois senator.

Nationally, both campaigns then shifted their sights to states yet to vote, including Mississippi, which has its primary today. But Texas bragging rights, and a haul of delegates, remain to be driven by last week's caucuses, which started after the polls closed and were the first in multiple rounds of meetings that will ultimately yield 67 of the state's 228 delegates to the national convention.

Both camps agree it could take until county and state Senate district conventions March 29 for caucus delegate tallies to solidify. Some 88,000 people were selected in the caucuses to attend those meetings.

Unofficial and incomplete tallies posted online by the state party suggest that Obama won the caucuses by enough of a margin, 56 percent to 44 percent, that he could reap up to 38 delegates from the caucuses compared with Clinton's 29. If that happens, he stands to take more pledged delegates from Texas than Clinton (though that arithmetic leaves out how 35 Texas superdelegates, consisting of U.S. House members and party dignitaries, eventually shake out).

Not so, says Garry Mauro, coordinator of Clinton's Texas campaign. Mauro said his operatives assure him Clinton did as well in each state senatorial district at night as she did in voting during the day, and she may have outperformed her primary vote in caucuses in South Texas.

On Monday, the former party chairman who ushered into place the state's mixed system of a primary and caucus in the 1980s said the caucuses might deserve to fade. "We probably have to go to a pure primary," Bob Slagle said.

His thought was seconded by Molly Beth Malcolm, another former state party leader. "No one (else) has a process like this," Malcolm said. "It's time for a change."

Charles Soechting, the immediate past chairman of the state party, disagreed, saying of the caucuses: They "got complicated because there was a lot of good competition. It's a good thing. I'd really say leave it alone."

Texas Democrats adopted binding presidential primaries starting in 1988 to give voters a direct say in choosing the nominee, but party activists kept caucuses part of the election system, saying they would keep Texans involved in party affairs and encourage candidates to give Texas more personal attention.

That year, the state also shifted party primaries to March from May to join a Southern state Super Tuesday intended to nudge the national party toward choosing more conservative nominees.

Slagle, a Sherman lawyer, said Monday that he'd favor revisiting the primary-caucus system because the state's increasing urbanization has put pressure on party leaders to line up suitable sites for the caucuses. He said the pressure is sometimes worse when officials save money by merging polling places.

County activists said Monday they're far from knowing who won their caucuses.

Ewing said her team, working 12-hour days, has made more than 100,000 copies of minutes, delegate lists and other documents from precincts.

In Harris County, a dozen employees worked all weekend checking and copying documents from the county's 874 precincts, said county party chairman Gerry Birnberg. "In any given precinct, there are 150 pages that have to be examined," Birnberg said, adding that many precincts had to use scraps of paper and backs of posters because they ran out of forms.

Democratic leaders in El Paso and Cameron counties said that for some precincts, they had to correct miscalculations of delegates.

In Travis County, volunteers are expected to work through the next few nights entering delegate data, said Elizabeth Yevich, the county party's executive director. "The phone has been ringing off the hook," she said. "We need some peace and quiet."

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 11, 2008, 12:07 pm

Democratic Party chiefs in major counties on Monday were verifying sign-in sheets from last Tuesday's caucuses and not expecting to focus on results until later this week or next. "We're not even counting (who voted for whom) at this point," Dallas County Democratic Party chairwoman Darlene Ewing said. "We're just copying" documents.

retarded. stop copying pointless documents and count the fucking votes. what kind of circus show is this?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 11, 2008, 12:19 pm

Fash wrote:
Democratic Party chiefs in major counties on Monday were verifying sign-in sheets from last Tuesday's caucuses and not expecting to focus on results until later this week or next. "We're not even counting (who voted for whom) at this point," Dallas County Democratic Party chairwoman Darlene Ewing said. "We're just copying" documents.
retarded. stop copying pointless documents and count the fucking votes. what kind of circus show is this?

I believe that both camps have to verify the documents. That would go "faster" if each had their own copy. Plus, if you noticed in the article, not all of the documents are the normal caucus forms. Sticky notes, scraps of paper, and the back of posters were also used due to the huge turnout.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » March 11, 2008, 1:49 pm

Take your time, Texas. The General Election isn't until November.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 12, 2008, 2:06 pm

Ferraro told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif.: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Who's the racists again?

What a scumbaggery is the animal called politics. Hillary has her crew go out and say shit that will get into peoples heads and then comes out with this...

Clinton said, "I do not agree with that," and later added, "It's regrettable that any of our supporters - on both sides, because we both have this experience - say things that kind of veer off into the personal."

"We ought to keep this on the issues. there are differences between us" on approaches to health care, energy, experience.

HAHAHA

Oh man. What a dirty game. I'm not even sure politics in general are as dirty as Clinton politics.

The Dems are such scum though,. They press upon all of us how racist America is and how held down the black man is, and now the only reason he is doing well is because he is black. WTF?!?!

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 12, 2008, 2:10 pm

She said the same thing about Jesse Jackson, too... Ferraro, that is.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 12, 2008, 3:06 pm

I think Obama is doing so well, because he's not Hillary Clinton or an old white guy.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » March 12, 2008, 3:07 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:The Dems are such scum though,.

I disagree. They just hold a different, but viable, viewpoint than yours, and in some cases that viewpoint is the same and people are just arguing over labels. The Ferraro thing is a non-issue IMO, just one person's opinion who has a lot of experience in politics (she did run for VP once as I recall, you haven't).

I (personally) don't know anyone who's excited about Obama "because he's black" any more than I do people that are excited about McCain because he's white.

I know several people excited about McCain because they see him as willing to work with both sides of the house and because he has gone though all he has as a POW in the Vietnam War. Others not so enthused because they see him as a Bush Clone (although Bush was neither willing to work with both sides nor was he a real Vietnam veteran...). They also don't like that he speaks plain (a la "The jobs are gone" "We'll be in Iraq for 100 years if that's what it takes" etc). People like to be fed rainbows and chocolate covered lies in an election year. He's taken the "Let's be realistic approach" while Obama's taken the "Let's be optimistic" approach. Hillary's taken the "Let's get me back into the White House because you owe it to me" approach.

I know of no one excited about Hillary "because she's a woman" or Obama "because he's black", but I'm not naive enough to think they aren't out there.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 12, 2008, 3:38 pm

Ashur wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:The Dems are such scum though,.
I disagree. They just hold a different, but viable, viewpoint than yours, and in some cases that viewpoint is the same and people are just arguing over labels. The Ferraro thing is a non-issue IMO, just one person's opinion who has a lot of experience in politics (she did run for VP once as I recall, you haven't).

I (personally) don't know anyone who's excited about Obama "because he's black" any more than I do people that are excited about McCain because he's white.

I know several people excited about McCain because they see him as willing to work with both sides of the house and because he has gone though all he has as a POW in the Vietnam War. Others not so enthused because they see him as a Bush Clone (although Bush was neither willing to work with both sides nor was he a real Vietnam veteran...). They also don't like that he speaks plain (a la "The jobs are gone" "We'll be in Iraq for 100 years if that's what it takes" etc). People like to be fed rainbows and chocolate covered lies in an election year. He's taken the "Let's be realistic approach" while Obama's taken the "Let's be optimistic" approach. Hillary's taken the "Let's get me back into the White House because you owe it to me" approach.

I know of no one excited about Hillary "because she's a woman" or Obama "because he's black", but I'm not naive enough to think they aren't out there.

Watch some BET tonight when you go home.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 12, 2008, 3:57 pm

So remember what a big deal Super Tuesday II was supposed to be? How Ohio and Texas were supposed to be so definitive and important? How it was a huge comeback win for Hillary?

Hillary gained 7 pledged delegates that day (+9 Ohio, -3 Texas, +4 Rhode Island, -3 Vermont).

Since then, Obama has gained 7 pledged delegates (+2 Wyoming, +5 Mississippi).

So the week as a whole is a wash. Christ, can we get on with it already?

Incidentally, I personally think that this demonstrates the extent to which the media allows Clinton to control the narrative of the race. She was so fixated on the importance of Ohio and Texas that the media bought into it entirely, when those two states wound up being damn near irrelevant in terms of delegates. This allowed her to use her strength in these states to gain important political capital for no apparent reason.

What WAS incredibly important were the 11 primaries in which Obama gained 168 pledged delegates between Super Tuesday I and II. That's the big story. That stretch is what has defined the race.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » March 12, 2008, 4:48 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:Watch some BET tonight when you go home.

I'll get right on that...

besides, like I said. I'm not naive enough to believe they aren't out there and, you know what, good for them. If that's what's important to them, it's important. The same thing about the Evangelicals and all the other groups out there. Vote for what you believe in. That's what democracy is all about.

Actually I think I'll play EQ2 and bitch that there's no Barbarians running for President on the "Stop this shit... NOW!" ticket.

Sueven wrote:So the week as a whole is a wash. Christ, can we get on with it already?

No one can clinch it prior to the convention unless someone happens to concede before then, and that won't happen.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 12, 2008, 4:55 pm

Ashur wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:Watch some BET tonight when you go home.
I'll get right on that... besides, like I said. I'm not naive enough to believe they aren't out there and, you know what, good for them. If that's what's important to them, it's important. The same thing about the Evangelicals and all the other groups out there. Vote for what you believe in. That's what democracy is all about.

Actually I think I'll play EQ2 and bitch that there's no Barbarians running for President on the "Stop this shit... NOW!" ticket.

Sueven wrote:So the week as a whole is a wash. Christ, can we get on with it already?
No one can clinch it prior to the convention unless someone happens to concede before then, and that won't happen.

Nope. Because the Clintons are scum. The same ones who said the popular vote was so important when Bush beat Kerry, will forget all about that come conventin time and say despite losing the popular vote AND electoral vote, they should be the nominee. What wonderful drama.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 12, 2008, 5:11 pm

So you can tell the future now? Awesome. What's the powerball numbers for this week?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 12, 2008, 5:19 pm

Nope. I sure can't. I'm basing my opinion on the Clintons behavior over the past 16 years and on Clintons own words saying she has won the big states and that she believes she should be the candidate and Obama can be her black sidekick.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » March 12, 2008, 5:43 pm

Part of me thinks Bill could care less if his wife gets the office.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 12, 2008, 5:49 pm

Ashur wrote:Part of me thinks Bill could care less if his wife gets the office.

Let's say the # of BJ's he is getting right now is X

The number he would get if she was president is Y

If Y > X

He cares more than you might think.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 12, 2008, 5:55 pm

Ashur wrote:No one can clinch it prior to the convention unless someone happens to concede before then, and that won't happen.

But nothing is really going to change before the convention. Obama will have won a majority of states, a majority of pledged delegates, a majority of the popular vote. Clinton will have won more big states than Obama, and can try out her arguments about caucuses being undemocratic, red states not truly counting, and so on. Maybe something will happen to Michigan and Florida, but it's unlikely to be significant enough to really effect the bottom-line facts of the race. They've both got their coalitions together; neither one is going to change substantially.

It is possible for the battle to effectively end before the convention without either nominee conceding. That would happen if the vast bulk of the superdelegates coalesced Obama and said "hey, by any reasonable measure, he's won the nomination, and that's not going to change." Strong superdelegate support would put him over the top and allow the interminable nomination process to end.

Really, that may be the only way that the Democrats can save themselves at this point. If Clinton gets the nomination, I don't think there's any chance that she'll win. Enough shit has gone down that many Obama supporters, including myself, would find it very, very difficult to vote for Hillary, let alone campaign for or donate to her. If Obama gets the nomination after a bitter all-the-way-to-Denver battle, it's likely that Clinton will have succeeded in damaging him enough to kill his chances of winning in rust-belt swing states, undermining his support among white women and working-class white men, and turning the race into an identity-based shitfest that will turn off moderate independents and republicans.

In fact, Clinton's argument will likely be "look, I destroyed Obama, now I'm your only chance." That's not a good argument, and a particularly unfortunate strategy choice given that McCain has signalled his willingness to run a clean, above-ground campaign, and the fact that her attacks have far more credibility among their targets coming from a Democratic candidate than they would coming from McCain.

I've largely stopped caring; at this point my strategy is to see what shakes out and see if there's anyone left in the race that I'm willing to support. As promising as this whole cycle has been at times, it's very possible that it could end up being a third-party year for me.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 12, 2008, 6:56 pm

Ashur wrote:Part of me thinks Bill could care less if his wife gets the office.

I disagree with that. Bill is a publicity hound and loves the lifestyle. If you mean he doesn't really care about Hillary, I would agree, but he does care about returning to the spotlight.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 13, 2008, 5:48 pm

Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11
Obama's Pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Has a History of What Even Obama's Campaign Aides Say Is 'Inflammatory Rhetoric'

Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."

"He has impacted the life of Barack Obama so much so that he wants to portray that feeling he got from Rev. Wright onto the country because we all need something positive," said another member of the congregation.

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

3 strike law huh? hehe Feeling a bit defense about that one. Interesting.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337515,00.html

We are who are friends are. Before you say that isn't true, try and recall if you were one of the folks who bashed Bush based on things Cheney did or said. Before you say that isn't true, try and recall if you were one of the folks who bashed Bush based on his affiliations with Afghanistan, oil moguls, Haliburton, his being a christian(eek! god forbid!).

Have a nice day hypocrites.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » March 13, 2008, 6:07 pm

1) You're a troll.
2) You're the biggest hyprocrite ever to shit all over these boards, this is not conjecture this is well established fact.
3) Cheney/Bush is hardly a comparable relationship to Anyone/Preacher_01, in fact it would be far more likely that someone attends a church than follows the preacher to whatever parish he's preaching in this year.
4) The three strikes law is widely seen in the rest of the world as an abomination of the legal system, removing jurisprudence and putting it into the hands of redneck retards like yourself.
5) DIAF

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 13, 2008, 6:14 pm

I hope that isn't true. If so, we don't need his Al Sharpton sounding ass anywhere near the White House.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » March 13, 2008, 8:40 pm

It's been the topic of all the radio shows today.

If I was going to goto church, and I shopped around til I found one that fit me (like Obama did) It would damn well fit my personal feelings. If it didnt at that time, it would surely pull me over to that way of thinking if I kept going for 20 years (like Obama!)

So guilt by association works in this case 100% just like if I where to attend a KKK rally on an extended basis.

Zealith I'm gonna have to lean against you looking more like the troll sometimes (especially now). Lashing out in an attack because someone brings something up that doesnt fit your pink and fuzzy view of the REAL liberal messiah just makes you seem brainwashed and silly.

Obama has constantly said he refers to this pastor as a confidant and advisor. So these views WILL find thier way into the white house should Obama Sin Laden win the race...

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 13, 2008, 8:51 pm

I can't watch this atm, any good?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xtAja20kTCA

Keith Obermann supposedly ripping Hillary.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » March 13, 2008, 8:58 pm

Noysyrump wrote: Zealith I'm gonna have to lean against you looking more like the troll sometimes (especially now). Lashing out in an attack because someone brings something up that doesnt fit your pink and fuzzy view of the REAL liberal messiah just makes you seem brainwashed and silly.

Wow, you really are a fucking moron.

Also, only the most uneducated blinkered fuckwits on the planet would disagree with the following sentiments. The embarrassing fact that one of you redneck yokel hillbilly fuckheads has actually tried to use them as a misinformed defence against a less retarded, morally legitimate and fundamentally non-spastic worldview merely shows how comically idiotic you actually are to the wider world. 'Laughable Yank Moronism' is the phrase here.

Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."
Hyperbole! (Learn some words Midnyte, they help for context!)

Quote:
"He has impacted the life of Barack Obama so much so that he wants to portray that feeling he got from Rev. Wright onto the country because we all need something positive," said another member of the congregation.
Conjecture! (The same rule for learning words applies here!)

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
Dramatic misquoting! It's called being "somewhat educated and not a fucking Fox News retard sheep" (for future reference)

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 13, 2008, 9:27 pm

Nick wrote:
Noysyrump wrote: Zealith I'm gonna have to lean against you looking more like the troll sometimes (especially now). Lashing out in an attack because someone brings something up that doesnt fit your pink and fuzzy view of the REAL liberal messiah just makes you seem brainwashed and silly.
Wow, you really are a fucking moron.

Also, only the most uneducated blinkered fuckwits on the planet would disagree with the following sentiments. The embarrassing fact that one of you redneck yokel hillbilly fuckheads has actually tried to use them as a misinformed defence against a less retarded, morally legitimate and fundamentally non-spastic worldview merely shows how comically idiotic you actually are to the wider world. 'Laughable Yank Moronism' is the phrase here.

Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."
Hyperbole! (Learn some words Midnyte, they help for context!)

Quote:
"He has impacted the life of Barack Obama so much so that he wants to portray that feeling he got from Rev. Wright onto the country because we all need something positive," said another member of the congregation.
Conjecture! (The same rule for learning words applies here!)

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
Dramatic misquoting! It's called being "somewhat educated and not a fucking Fox News retard sheep" (for future reference)

As usual, you are wrong. Didn't hear about it on Foxnews. But, how does it change what is at hand where I heard it? It doesn't. Misquoting? Try watching clips of this man and then trying saying with a straight face it is misquoting. You are, as usual, an uninformed moron.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 14, 2008, 12:33 am

Winnow wrote:I can't watch this atm, any good?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xtAja20kTCA

Keith Obermann supposedly ripping Hillary.

Very well said. This does quite a bit to repair Olbermanns image with me. I don't want her to take his advice though, she needs to lose.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 14, 2008, 12:39 am

What? He said bullshit. What Ferraro said was true. She is speaking the truth. She even said if she wasn't a woman she wouldn't have been picked as VP candidate. Oh man, what a farce. This is even more Obermann false disgust at something that was said. *sigh*

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 14, 2008, 1:09 am

Consider how many black presidents we have had in our history. Consider how many serious black presidential candidates we have had in our history. Consider how many black vice presidents or black vice presidential candidates we have had in our history.

Then consider that president and vice president are the only offices filled by national election in the entire American government.

You can also throw the underrepresentation of blacks in government in general if you like.

With that considered, do you still REALLY think that Obama's race is a boon to his presidential candidacy?

Really?

Maybe you think that history is irrelevant because America was different then (which, admittedly, it was) and we're now in a post-racism age in which being a traditionally discriminated against minority is a benefit. That would explain the opinion, but I'm skeptical.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 14, 2008, 2:05 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:What? He said bullshit. What Ferraro said was true. She is speaking the truth. She even said if she wasn't a woman she wouldn't have been picked as VP candidate. Oh man, what a farce. This is even more Obermann false disgust at something that was said. *sigh*

are you fucking kidding me? I'll give you what she said about herself was true, but about him?

By her logic, or lack there of, (and yours) any minority that gets into the position of successfully running for national office succeeded precisely because they were minorities? Do you even understand the definition of the word minority? For a member of the minority to win the support of the majority is MORE fucking difficult, not less, you imbecile. Especially considering the history of blacks in the U.S. Women are not a minority (in numbers) in the same way that blacks are, but you can't teach math to a fucking monkey, can you?

fucking fuck. just so ignorant, it's appalling.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » March 14, 2008, 8:45 am

Midnight you may believe she speaks the truth but take her statement and replace black with white, asian, jew, christian, woman, man, some-group-you-identify-with, etc. What is more offensive is why she said it, she (and Clinton's campaign) is trying to pigeon hole Obama as "the black candidate". The obvious angry feminism gives that away.

How many people when they first heard of Obama's candicy did not have a first reaction of "this guy doesn't have a chance in hell"?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 14, 2008, 9:08 am

It's not crazy at all. We are in an era of white guilt. Blacks have come out in record numbers to vote for Barack Obama. Geez, I wonder why. Could it be because he's black?

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 14, 2008, 10:13 am

If he was playing the race card like quoted above, the only place he has in the white house is maybe doing laundry or cooking. I'm serious. I have no time for that bullshit from a serious political candidate, and neither should anyone else.